Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Confidence Coefficient01:24

Confidence Coefficient

7.9K
The confidence coefficient is also known as the confidence level or degree of confidence. It is the percent expression for the probability, 1-α, that the confidence interval contains the true population parameter assuming that the confidence interval is obtained after sufficient unbiased sampling; for example, if the CL = 90%, then in 90 out of 100 samples the interval estimate will enclose the true population parameter. Here α is the area under the curve, distributed equally under...
7.9K
Confidence Intervals01:21

Confidence Intervals

7.2K
An unbiased point estimate is often insufficient to predict a population estimate, such as population mean or population proportion. In this scenario, a confidence interval is used. A confidence interval is an estimate similar to a  sample proportion. However, unlike the point estimate which is a single value, the confidence interval  contains a range of values. These values have lower and upper limits, known as confidence limits, and can be designated as L1 and L2, respectively.
A...
7.2K
Interpretation of Confidence Intervals01:19

Interpretation of Confidence Intervals

6.6K
A confidence interval is a better estimate of the population than a point estimate, as it uses a range of values from a sample instead of a single value.
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...
6.6K
Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals00:54

Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals

4.9K
The confidence interval is the range of values around the mean that contains the true mean. It is expressed as a probability percentage. The interpretation of a 95% confidence interval, for instance, is that the statistician is 95% confident that the true mean falls within the interval. The upper and lower limits of this range are known as confidence limits. The confidence limits for the true mean are estimated from the sample's mean, the standard deviation, and the statistical factor...
4.9K
Confidence Interval for Estimating Population Mean01:25

Confidence Interval for Estimating Population Mean

8.1K
A point estimate of the population mean is obtained from a single sample. Such a point estimate does not represent a population well because it needs to account for variability in the population. Single point estimate can also be biased despite the sample being selected randomly. Thus, a point estimate is often unreliable. A confidence interval is needed to reduce this unreliability.
A confidence interval for the mean is a range of values that provides an estimate of the population mean. As the...
8.1K
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error00:59

Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error

1.1K
An experiment often consists of more than a single step. In this case, measurements at each step give rise to uncertainty. Because the measurements occur in successive steps, the uncertainty in one step necessarily contributes to that in the subsequent step. As we perform statistical analysis on these types of experiments, we must learn to account for the propagation of uncertainty from one step to the next. The propagation of uncertainty depends on the type of arithmetic operation performed on...
1.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Conceptual Spaces for Conceptual Engineering? Feminism as a Case Study.

Review of philosophy and psychology·2025
Same author

Inference to the best neuroscientific explanation.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2024
Same author

Editorial: Beyond formal models of reasoning about explanations.

Frontiers in psychology·2024
Same author

Similarity-based reasoning in conceptual spaces.

Frontiers in psychology·2023
Same author

Williamson on conditionals and testimony.

Philosophical studies·2023
Same author

Conceptual spaces and the strength of similarity-based arguments.

Cognition·2021
Same journal

Transferring ways of thinking and mathematizing: The statistical approach between physics and biology.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2026
Same journal

The Dynamics of Quantum Gravity: The Missing Piece in the Spacetime Emergentist Account.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2026
Same journal

A frame-based approach for reconstructing theories.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2026
Same journal

Strategic ignorance, and the management of performative effects: Lessons from climate economics.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2026
Same journal

Fictionalism and scientific realism: A response to ungrounded criticism.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2026
Same journal

Is Emergy really a theory of value ?

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 21, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.2K

Network effects in a bounded confidence model.

Igor Douven1, Rainer Hegselmann2

  • 1IHPST / CNRS / Panthéon-Sorbonne University, France.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
|May 31, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study introduces a bounded confidence model with communication networks, removing the assumption of universal belief access. It explores network effects, investigating if dense networks are always superior for epistemic agents.

Keywords:
Agent-based modelingBandit problemsBelief changeBounded confidenceNetwork epistemologyRobustness

More Related Videos

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
04:35

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach

Published on: July 3, 2020

3.4K
The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm
06:18

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

Published on: October 20, 2022

2.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 21, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.2K
Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
04:35

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach

Published on: July 3, 2020

3.4K
The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm
06:18

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

Published on: October 20, 2022

2.2K

Area of Science:

  • Epistemology
  • Agent-based modeling
  • Network science

Background:

  • The bounded confidence model is widely used for studying interacting agents.
  • A key limitation is the assumption that all agents access all other agents' beliefs.
  • Network epistemology offers tools to address this limitation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop a bounded confidence model incorporating explicit communication networks.
  • To investigate network effects on belief propagation and consensus.
  • To determine if network topology influences outcomes, challenging the notion that denser networks are always better.

Main Methods:

  • Modification of the bounded confidence model to include network structures.
  • Simulation of agent interactions based on network connectivity.
  • Analysis of belief convergence and opinion dynamics under varying network densities.

Main Results:

  • Network structure significantly impacts the convergence of beliefs among agents.
  • Sparser networks can sometimes lead to more robust consensus than densely connected ones.
  • The study replicates and extends findings from network epistemology within the bounded confidence framework.

Conclusions:

  • Communication network topology is a critical factor in agent-based epistemic models.
  • The assumption of full information access is overly simplistic and can be relaxed using network structures.
  • Future research should explore diverse network topologies and their impact on collective belief formation.